Ten Years of Applying the Scientist-Educator Model (SEM) to Develop and Assess Respect for Human Dignity (RFHD)

Dr. Michelle A. Butler Samuels and Dr. Lauren F. V. Scharff (short bios)


  1. Purpose
  2. Scientist-Educator Model (Bernstein et al., 2010)
  3. Our-Interventions
  4. Our-Assessments
  5. Lessons learned
  6. Tips for Adapting Our Work to Your Course
  7. Future directions
  8. Acknowledgements
Research Presentations with links to posters
Lauren and Michelle at RMPA poster 2018
Lauren & Michelle at RMPA 2018

Purpose

Excerpt from Butler Samuels and Scharff (2020; under review): "Educational scholars continue to emphasize the confirmed value of high-impact course experiences to enhance learning (Kuh, 2008). Kuh reports that impactful experiences designed to develop diversity and global learning often include explorations of “difficult differences” that expose students to “…cultures, life experiences, and worldviews different from their own.” Although exploration of “difficult differences” is a worthy goal, it can vary in how it is executed and, consequently, vary in strength of impact. Over the past decade, we applied the scientist-educator model (SEM) in Biopsychology, Sensation and Perception, and Class, Race and Ethnicity in Society courses to design and assess high-impact learning experiences. We used SEM to design interventions that would develop Respect for Human Dignity (RFHD) and assessments to evaluate results. We drew from the literature on prejudice reduction to develop interventions, which involved face-to-face (F2F) experiences with “others” who had sensory challenges, brain/spinal cord injuries, or homelessness. SEM has been useful because it guides us through systematic, iterative steps focused on improving student learning."

Scientist-Educator Model (Bernstein et al., 2010)

Excerpt from Butler Samuels and Scharff (2020; under review): "SEM is an adaptation of the better-known scientist-practitioner model used in clinical and counseling psychology to evaluate and implement evidence-based treatment strategies. A scientist-educator, like a scientist-practitioner, uses systematic, evidence-based inquiry into the effectiveness of practice to continually improve results, but focuses on the effectiveness of teaching rather than the effectiveness of therapy.  The scientist-educator is informed by others’ best practices, is committed to student learning, and shares practices with peers. The scientist-educator uses data to intentionally and meaningfully improve a course, its learning experiences and its assessments (Bernstein et al., 2010). The SEM steps include:
  1. conceptualize the learning process, set goals,
  2. learn about teaching,
  3. design measures to assess learning,
  4. design learning activities,
  5. deliver the course, measure outcomes, make decisions, and
  6. reflect publicly, use feedback."

Our Interventions

Our course interventions have included readings, in-class simulation activities, discussions, and field trips. The field trip experiences are what we believe have the most impact. During field trips, students interact with the "others" (deaf, blind, spinal cord or brain injured, homeless, etc. as relevant to the course material), rather than simply "touring" a facility. The others share personal experiences and goals, and answer questions from the visiting students. Depending on the context, our students might engage in activities such as learning rudimentary sign language, playing goal ball, completing everyday tasks such as making a sandwich or navigating a space blindfolded using a white cane, navigating a space while in a wheelchair, etc.

Students at CSDB making sandwiches while blind-folded
 Students playing goal ball at CSDB
 Student engaging in activity with patient at Craig Hospital
Students making graham-cracker icing sandwiches at the CSDB.
 Students playing goal ball at CSDB
 Student engaging in an art activity with a patient at Craig Hospital

Our Assessments

We developed three types of pre-post measures to capture different types of shifts in RFHD attitudes and behavioral likelihoods:

  1. Guided Reflection Writing Assignments: These serve both as a means of bringing the impact of the upcoming or recently-completed field trips into awareness to enhance development, and as a means to qualitatively assess student reactions to the field trips. [Original reflection questions used in Brain and Behavior course; Original reflection used in Sensation and Perception course; Adapted reflection questions used in Class, Race & Ethnicity course]
  2. Behavioral Tendencies Questionnaire (BTQ): This questionnaire contains two common scenarios to which respondents indicate likelihoods of behaviors. The first scenario involves nodding and saying hello to another person that might pass them in the aisle. Several types of others are included for the scenario (e.g. someone similar, someone who is blind, someone who is in a wheelchair, someone who is homeless). The second scenario occurs at a social gathering and includes 4 possible behaviors (smile and say hello, engage in conversation, introduce friends, and make future plans) during a social interaction with a variety of types of others. Students use a 10-point scale to indicate their likelihood to engage in each of the behaviors for the various types of others. [Original BTQ used in both Brain and Behavior course and Sensation and Perception course; Adapted BTQ used in Class, Race & Ethnicity course]
  3. The 4-Factor Respect Model: Based on several years of qualitative analysis of our students' reflection responses, the four dimensions of respect are: 1) Sadness/Sympathy → Hope/Inspiration; 2) Difficulty Relating/Sense of Foreignness → Empathy/Sense of Connection; 3) Ignorance→ Cognitive Knowledge; 4) Awkwardness/Fear of Offending→ Comfort/Approach. Students use a 10-point scale for each dimension to indicate how they would feel about different types of others if they were to be paired with them for a volunteer event that would last for several hours. [Original 4-factor questionnaire used in both Brain and Behavior course and Sensation and Perception course; Adapted 4-factor questionnaire used in Class, Race & Ethnicity course]
Each of these assessments can easily be modified for different types of others who are relevant to a specific course. We hope that other educators and researchers will use our assessments to help build a broader understanding of efforts to develop RFHD. If you use our materials (original form or adapted) and publish findings, we would appreciate you citing us (this website until our paper is published). Thank you.

Lessons learned

These ten years have provided numerous lessons learned about how to best conduct these experiences and design research studies. Some highlights include:
  1. Embrace the Scientist-Educator Model (SEM) by applying it in each of your classes and appreciate how the work will always be “in progress.”
  2. Be intentional about what you design and be prepared before engaging students - realize that students are likely to experience anxiety about interacting with group of others who appear to be different from them.
  3. Student reflection is key to processing the experiences and supporting more lasting personal growth.
  4. Subtle changes to the F2F experiences can lead to development (or not) of different components of RFHD.
  5. Seek out and develop community partnerships which will generate high-impact learning experiences.
  6. Respect and carefully cultivate the mutually beneficial partnership so it can be sustained over time.

Tips for Adapting Our Work to Your Course

We recommend reviewing our journey by visiting the materials on this page, and comparing and contrasting it to your specific context. Tips include:
  1. Find a community partner that is a good fit your course.
  2. Review our assessments and consider how you might change the scenario wording to meet your needs.
  3. Continually assess if your objectives are being or if you need to make adjustments.
  4. If you are considering developing respect or inclusiveness of different groups, connect with the diversity and inclusion office on your campus for best practices when engaging in this work. You might also consult with other faculty and researchers who have navigated this territory before you.
  5. Always be diligent about your own preparation and be sensitive to students and what they might be exposed to through the experience.

Future directions

In the future, we would like to design a longitudinal study to examine the endurance of the RFHD development. In addition, we would like to further enhance the collaboration with Naropa University to extend the current applied focus with a research component similar to our previous studies.”

Acknowledgements

This work would not be possible without the dedicated support from the Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind (csdb.org), Colorado Springs, CO; Craig Hospital, Englewood, CO (craighospital.org); the Marian House, Colorado Springs, CO (ccharities.cc.org); and Naropa University, Boulder, CO (naropa.edu). We would also thank our co-authors, Dr. Karin DeAngelis and Gen (Ret) Gary A. Packard, Jr. for significantly contributing to this work over the years.”